Post Class - 10/28

In class today, we had a long discussion about sub-cultures. We first defined a sub culture and we then went on to give examples and attempt to understand why and how they are formed. We discussed how once a sub-culture is picked up by the media or massed produced, it starts to loose its label as a sub-culture and begins to normalize. Some examples were, skateboard parks, graffiti walls, stores like 'Hot Topic'. All of these outlets commodify the uniqueness and artistic element of a sub-culture. This reminded me of Benjamin's 'Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' and the discussion of authenticity and originality. How when something becomes mainstream and reproduced, it looses its aura. For many people, a sub culture is an outlet from the hegemonic narrative, but when that sub culture is controlled and sold it becomes the narrative.

Post Class Response 10/31

In Thursday’s class as we came about Adorno and Horkheimer and the relation of sameness and body modification. I was extremely shocked by the relation of these two concepts. It seems as though people either want to be the same or they want to take the other extreme, and be different. While at first modifying one’s body was considered extremely different, in today’s society body modification is common. Whether it is through tattoos, piercing, or plastic surgery what was once different is now more than normal. While I am often drawn to stare at people who have these kinds of body modifications it is not because I am offended but rather because I don’t understand them. I think in any way altering one’s body is not necessary. Of course there are certain circumstances that make body altering more relevant than others. The way the media portrays the acceptance and even encourages the plastic surgery and other body modifications to make everyone look as close to the way society constructs “perfection.” It is even apparent in the lives of celebrities where they want to look like someone or something that they see as common and desired. For example, how Ashlee Simpson got her nose job to look like Jessica Simpson’s. I wish I could understand more about why people seem to modify their body when it causes so much attention. If the media and our society gave up on the existence of “perfection,” “sameness,” and “difference” we would all be free to express ourselves as individuals and that is a start.

Media Example-Body Modification

In class, we talked about body piercings as a form of otherness. Instead of a simple piercing, we now see implants such as the one in the picture. This is still new but as the years pass, it will become naturalized and rather than otherness become sameness.

Post blog

On Thursday’s class we analyzed the recuperation of the sub-culture according to theorist Dick Hebdige from “Subculture: The Meaning of Style”. We talked about the quote:

“As soon as the original innovations which signify ‘subculture’ are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become ‘frozen’.”(156) In relation to this quote we talked about the example of graffiti and tagging in the hip-hop subculture. It used to be illegal and frowned upon because when people did it, they were defacing public property. However, it could also be seen as a form of communication or cry for help. People started recognizing the skill set that came with it and soon it became commoditized. Whereas graffiti was once illegal it is now considered art and mainstream. Graffiti is not only sold as art, but also in the form of clothes and video games. We see it produced on a mass scale and made into profitable merchandise. It becomes difficult to separate commercial exploitation and creativity/originality. I feel like at a certain point, everything will become mainstream. Hebdige points out that as subcultures establish new trends, looks, and sounds get fed back directly into high fashion and mainstream fashion. What about the artists? Do they not see a problem in sturing their art into a commodity? This too is an interesting point to critically look at.

With our capitalistic society, it becomes impossible not to commoditize everything. Will we ever be able to simply appreciate these subcultures without trying to turn them into something that can be sold? Another quote we discussed was “Deviant” behavior redefined (155). The example of indie music was brought up. Indie music meant that you didn’t have enough money to produce music in a large studio therefore you recorded your own music. Now, people are creating indie music by going into large studios to re-create the same “indie” sound. Which one is authentic? Are they both authentic? Again, we are producing something on a mass scale and making it profitable merchandise.

Post Class Post - Adorno

In class on thursday we analyzed the Adorno/Horheimer reading and how it compared to other theorists and cmc terms. One quote that stuck out to me in the reading and our discussion was:
    
     "The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry...the more...completely its [film's] techniques duplicate empirical objects, the more easily it creates the illusion that the world outside is a seamless extension of the one which has been revealed in the cinema" (45)


I felt like this quote embodied everything we've learned about American culture/society. We are a nation that has become extremely consumer-based - our citizens are materialistic and easily swayed (and misinformed) by media techniques. We need to be aware that material found in media has been put there for entertainment purposes, nothing less...they are not meant to be educational, influential, or realistic. This related to 2 other quotes that prof. Cummings put in her slideshow on thursday which dealt with the notion of Amusement.

"to be entertained means to be in agreement" (57)
"amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness" (57)

Adorno and Horkheimer

Freak tattoo subculture reminded me of Adorno & Horkheimer’s concern with the subcultures of society. The quote, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41) brought me to this link of the top 10 freaky tattoos.

http://tattoobringer.com/tag/cat-man-tattoo/

Many of these tattoo “freaks” have tried to become animals. The fact that there is a list with the top ten freaks gave me the instant impression on a subculture. And these people are all trying to tattoo their whole body, sharing the same concept in mind is what creates the subculture.

Another example I saw was in the movie Mrs. Doubtfire, there was a bisexual reference, and Robin Williams comments with “well it’s the 90s isn’t it?” And that quote alone from the famous actor-comedian, while he’s while women’s perfume and lipstick, instantly reference a bisexual subculture.

post class 10/31

In beginning of class this week we talked about Hebdige’s reading titled “From Culture to Hegemony Subculture” and one quote that I found very interesting was, “Ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense” (148). Today everything that we do is thought to be the “norm” or what just makes sense. The media also influences culture because the media represents and reinforces the American ideology.

This idea also relates to what Althusser theorized, “Ideology is profoundly unconscious.” Ideology is often unsaid in a society but it is accepted. This related to the example we used in class about the language of education. People in a certain community create a language that overtime becomes part of the language that we speak and is normalized within that community. One that is used within the Rollins College community that we talked about was “R-card.” Something that is part of the Rollins “language” that we use on a day to day basis but if someone not from that community heard that they would not have a clue about what they were talking about. Everything in our culture is normalized over time and it is done unconsciously.

On my honor i have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this blog.

This is what I thought about in class discussing Adorno and Horkheimer and their quote "Culture today is infecting everything with sameness."

Post Class

In class this week the question arose if the recession was affecting the consumerist society that the United States of America had previously always been associated with. The United States has always been known as a Capitalist, so much so that our culture itself has been transformed into a commodity. At first I believed that our views on money and spending were changing as a culture because of the coverage in the media on the recession. Being frugal seems to be a ‘fad’ in today’s culture. The news is full of ways to ‘cut back’ and save money. Fashion magazines glorify stars that dress in reasonably priced clothing. However, though the fixation is focused on low prices, the act of consuming is still present. Instead of developing as a culture to be less consumerist, we are justifying it in a time of bad economic standings. The media is allowing and telling the public to continue buying what they ‘need’ and to not be shy about it because they can do it ‘reasonably’. The act of justifying the spending proves that consumerism is still a big part of our society. Another question that arose this week is whether there is a possibility that all inventive ideas have already been created, and all that is left is to improve upon these ideas. This can be explicitly seen in fashion. Fashion is constantly reoccurring. Vintage is ‘in’ and the ‘fads’ of the past generation resurface with slight alterations. In the beginning of the term culture was described as an aura rather than an era for just this reason. By defining culture as an aura allows it to reoccur, to move throughout time. An era is fixed in a particular space, but an aura has the ability to move, change, and reoccur. I do not know the answer to this question, but it is a bleak outlook on life. It almost states that we as a people are done evolving and are simply mimicking.

Post Class

A quote that stood out to me in Tuesday’s class discussion in Hebdige’s piece was, “Ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense” (148). I think that this is why present ideologies are not questioned nor recognized. Ideology presents a set of shared assumptions and understandings that people then take as natural and just the way things are. These ideas are then circulated in various media texts. We are unaware that ideologies are all around us because they are present in almost everything that we consume. How Hebdige compares ideology to common sense really drives home the concept of how hard it is to not see it as natural.

Something else in the class discussion that I found interesting was Hebdige’s idea of sub cultural signs becoming mass-produced and how these signs become redefined in consumer culture. There is something that happens to that subculture when it becomes mass-produced. One of the most well-known sub cultures is those who categorize themselves as being “punk”. A really interesting example of this is the movie SLC Punk. It reminds me of the quote, “Subcultures represent ‘noise’ (as opposed to sound): Interference in the orderly sequence…” (153). In the movie the two main characters are always stirring up trouble in their conservative hometown of Salt Lake City. They believe that they are the only “true punks” and that everyone else that has adapted to the same trend are posers. In the end, they realize that they have bought into the mainstream culture just like everyone else had.

Movie Trailer for SLC Punk

Horkheimer and Adorno Post-Class

Even though I was not in class Thursday due to being sick, I still read “Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno and found it very interesting. They deal with a lot of what the other theorists we have looked at deal with as well: the idea that we live in consumer based society. They talk a lot about consumerism and capitalist society, which is something that Marx has talked about with his idea of commodity fetishism, which I learned about in CMC 100. Our society, especially nowadays, is capable of turning practically anything into a commodity and becoming obsessed with it. Look at popular culture and fashion: so many people will look at a celebrity… lets say Lady Gaga, and try and buy something even somewhat close to the outrageous pieces of clothing she wears. Horkheimer and Adorno also talk about how people are easily manipulated by the consumption of popular culture, which is very dangerous. The culture industries tend to create false needs for the consumer to make them buy their products. Many advertisements make you feel like you need to buy what is new, which relates back to when Habermans talks about “the cult of the new” and the idea that we live in a society that is constantly looking at what is bigger, better, and faster. We are always going to want to try the new invention and that is why we are a consumer based society-everything is aimed at the consumer in order to sell products. Horkheimer and Adorno say that we live in this type of mass produced culture even though many are in economic crisis’s, but do not even care because of how manipulated they are. This relates back to Marx when he talks about the binary oppositions of the American ruling class and how the idea that if people did not desire goods it does not function, so basically people want what they can’t have. Even though many people are in economic crisis’s, they still buy the products because they want what they cannot have.

“on my honor I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work”

No Answers: Adorno & Horkheimer

The headline caught the attention of millions. ‘Oil,’ ‘spill,’ ‘gulf’ … words that carry significant meaning individually, but together can kill thousands of species and destroy a coastline. Being from Chicago, I literally had a geographic distance that separated me from the emotional and financial difficulties that arose from the BP oil spill. Sure, gas prices went up and there were countless boycotts of BP gasoline in my area, but at the end of the day people still went back to the oil giant in fear that if it went out of business, the mess would never be cleaned up. As impacted as we felt by the spill, it was not until I talked to my friends from Florida did I realize its true damage. My friends were the ones who were living on the coast, who had parents working in the fishing industry, and felt the strain of the incident. On Thursday, we talked about the quote “no one has to answer officially for what he or she thinks” and I cannot get the idea of the oil spill out of my head. No one ever stepped up to the plate and claimed full responsibility for what happened. They did not answer the questions of the fisherman who were jobless, the environmentalists who were watching hundreds of species face endangerment, or the nation that just wanted an ending date. It is said that by May of 2010, over 130 miles of coastline had been heavily impacted (New Orleans Time Picayune), 11 workers were missing due to the explosion (Huffington Post), $1.6 billion in costs as of June (Press Association). These are pretty big numbers to be tossing around as if they are arbitrary. BP did not take responsibility for what happened, they blamed everyone else, pointed their find in hundreds of directions and even released press packets that claimed that knew what they were doing and people needed to stop reacting so heavily. I’m sorry, but in my opinion we every right to react. It is our coast, our wildlife, our job market and the sad thing about the whole situation is we will not even seen the true impact for years, but I suppose by then BP will have moved on.

Hebdige Post Class

I like today's class discussion about subcultures-- actually, I just really like subcultures in general. I've always loved music and I feel like it's a focal point for any subculture- hipsters, punk, goth, whatever. For awhile in high school I was all about the metal genre, and it definitely gives a feeling of beloning when you're super involved. Body modifications are getting bigger and bigger as a subculture, while at the same time they're pretty normal. The images above are a prime example of what we were talking about though. There's a huge difference between the scarification on a tribal member and a Star Wars fan (participatory culture on a WHOLE new level, yeah?) I mean, that's seriously LITERALLY carved into the skin. No thank you.

I didn't get a chance to say this in class, but in relationship to the above pictures, it reminds me of when we talked about"aura" and originality that Benjamin talked about. I mean, Yoda's pretty cool and all, but it doesn't have a some deep intellectual meaning. The tribal villager's picture didn't have a description, but the culture is completely different. Something is lost when we make things so mainstream, and I've never been a fan of that. But what isn't anymore, honestly? Somewhere, it's been made completely normal and accepted. Grafitti artists get worldwide recognition now, rather than having to hide in the shadows.

I went to the mall today to find a Halloween costume, so I went inside Hot Topic really quickly. It was, in short, EMBARRASSING. Silly bands and Taylor Swift was not what that company was a few years ago. Granted, teen culture is definitely changing, but I'm way more partial to my adolescence.

Pre-Class Adorno/Horkeimer Post

For tomorrow's class we were instructed to read The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkeimer. I felt like this reading related a lot to most of the other theorist's works that we've analyzed. In the text, Adorno provided readers with a theory on production (and reproduction) in our culture and it's value. One theme I really took from Adorno & Horkeimer was how standardization and interchangeability (both cmc terms) of material products under our capitalist society just leads to the interchangeability of people/ audiences. 

Another claim that Adorno made (which I thought was interesting) was how he said our analysis of mass culture and mass society have both proven to be inconclusive/unsatisfactory so far.  Instead of just going by what the media tells us or through word of mouth, we should analyze the apparatus' that influence our thinking, attitudes, and societal tendencies. However, personally, I always think that while our understanding of the ruling class/class structure in our nation might be growing, so is the culture industry. And because most material possession in the U.S. has been commoditized, those who own the manufacturing and distributing companies for those products (the wealthy) continue to get richer while we never experience any sort of social stratification. While I can't say I got all the key points of this particular reading, I do feel like I was able to compare it to a great deal of theorists/experiences in real life - which is what it's all about...right?

Horkheimer and Adorno - Tlloyd

“The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” by Max Horkeimer and Theodor Adorno circulates a theme the theme of consumerism and capitalist society. This is a theme that the majority of our authors have attacked in various ways. In reading the article, we are once again reminded of the notion that America is a consumer based society. This brings me back to the concept of the "cult of the new" and how everything in society is commodified. Bigger, Better, Faster. Thats what American's want. We are also reminded that the media feeds us the idea that we need these Bigger, Better, Faster things when in reality we most likely don't. We have somehow managed to commodify everything; as Barthes discusses in his essay "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" we have lost an aura. Nothing is original anymore. I believe it was YankeeDoodle13 who brought up movies, but I think they are a perfect example of reproduction. Some close family friends are movie producers and I have spoken to them about this. They will both argue that EVERY plot line has been done, no producers are forced to make an old plot new and interesting. Are we at a point where we can only improve on what society already has or is there still room for new inventions? Can you think of anything that is truly new and original today? If so please comment and post below. There are benefits to capitalism but when the benefit is only financial, I find it troublesome to believe that it is something we truly need.

Cultural Industries

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno co-wrote the article titled “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. This article deciphers the construction of modern culture. Our culture is one based on capitalism. We are very focused on commodities. It only makes since that a society whose ideologies support consumerism would treat their culture itself as something to be bought and sold. In this article it is argued that culture is bought, sold, and operated like an industry. The entertainment business is identified as the mediator and controller of consumers. The entertainment business reinforces the ideals of the culture, and therefore ensures its survival. This article reminds me of Roland Barthes article concerning art in an age of mechanical reproduction. Both articles discuss this concept of buying and selling culture in reference to art. Art has no concrete definitions or characteristics that allow people to judge whether it is good or bad, but instead art’s status is determined by ‘who’ says it is good or bad. Art has been transformed into a commodity because the value of art is closely associated with its price. A piece of work considered valuable is also expensive. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno continue to analyze this culture industry and determine that this cultural style not only affects how members of a society spend, but also every other facet of their lives. Culture determines how people think. A specific example of culture controlling thought is given above with the example of art. Entertainments initial construction claimed to be for distraction purposes. It claims to be an escape for viewers. However, violence, stereotype, propaganda, and other cultural messages are displayed within media/entertainment daily. Therefore, the viewer must be actively aware of such messages and try to decipher truth from fiction, making entertainment anything but an escape. Overall, a cultural industry is based on capitalism, and the ones who profit from the ideologies that the culture expresses make the money.

Adorno and Horkheimer Pre Class

While reading Horkheimer and Adorno's essay, "The Culture Industry," a quote that really resonated with me is, "The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry. The familiar experience of the moviegoer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left, because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception" (45). I think that everyone could say that this quote could relate to an experience they have had after seeing a movie. There are many times that I catch myself related aspects of a film back to aspects of my own life or to aspects of people's lives that I am close to. In a way this comparison is inevitable. If a film is presented that encompasses many real life scenarios that someone can relate to, it would be impossible to not recognize that similarity. What is also difficult is to then not take the ideas and actions away from the film after it has ended. Those relatable situations could then serve as guidance to the real life situation. This is where who is in power of production becomes very important because they have to power to decide how those situations play out. So many films are created in this way that at a certain point viewers are able to fill in the plot even if distracted. When reading furhter in the same paragraph Horkheimer and Adorno explain, "Far more strongly than the theatre of illusion, film denies its audience any dimension in which they might roam freely in imagination - contained by the film's framework but unsupervised by its precise actualities - without losing the thread; thus it trains those exposed to it to identify film directly with reality" (45). By film denying any imagination, the viewers will not be able to think beyond the framework and ideology that is presented in the film. This training to identify with film can sometimes pose a threat to the viewers as seen by the stories shown in the media about the individuals who became depressed after viewing the film Avatar. The viewers felt this way because of the tendency to compare film to real life.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/entertainment/avatar.movie.blues_1_pandora-depressed-posts?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

Pre-Post for 10/28

This week as I came across the Horkheimer and Adorno reading, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” I was curious. However, as I came to the later part of the article I had this realization connecting Walter Benjamin and Horkheimer and Adorno. The realization point that truly connected me is what you will find below: “ That character is not new: it is the fact that art now dutifully admits to being a commodity, abjures autonomy and proudly takes its place among consumer goods, that has the charm of novelty. Art was only ever able to exist as a separate sphere in its bourgeois form.” (M p.65) This quote directly resonates in my mind as if it could be coming out of Benjamin’s work titled, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” This article also seemed to correlate well with Althusser and Hebdige. To me when I am able to relate the material of theorists to others not only does it exemplify my understanding, but it also presents itself in a different way. It presents itself in a way that makes me want to further understand why the issue is so dwelled on by our theorists. The quote reminds me of how important it is to separate ourselves from society and represent ourselves as the individuals should all be. As Lyotard mentions that rebelling against these norms of society that cause us to lose our individuality will help form a stronger more individualistic society. By having something as significant as art once was becomes a commodity it really proves the power of the consumer culture within our society. This deeply saddens me to think that people can be so obsessed with “things” which in my opinion mean nothing to bettering a person’s future or their life at all.

A Nostalgic Point of View

With the holiday season just on the horizon, it is not overly surprising to see countless movie teasers and trailers on television amongst countless ads on the Internet. “It is just that time of year,” I tell myself, but never have really considered what types of nostalgia come about with today’s Hollywood. Reading through Jameson, I will admit that I struggled with some of the concepts and detail of the piece, however when it came to the “death of the subject,” I gained a bit of clarity.

What is odd about all of these films is not the timing of their release, but rather their plot lines and characters - they are all the same, at least it feels that way. It is no secret that films are inspired by previous films and visual intertextuality is alive and well, but has anyone noticed that Hollywood actors play the same role every single time? Whether type casted or afraid to leave their comfort zone, today’s celebrity circle is just that, a circle that cycles back over and over again because it can bring about a sense of nostalgia, a sense of familiarity, a sense of comfort. People will imitate the great actors of the past, “so that the very style of the acting can now also serve as a ‘connotator’” of this time (496). How many times have you heard that this child actor is the next Judy Garland or Gene Kelley? Perhaps the actors that are on the other side of this relationship differ, but people find comfort in being able to relate things back in time.

This idea of the “death of the subject” as no one is new anymore or has a new style, but rather is based of someone from the past, is just as, if not more, present in music. It is not about personality or character, it is about finding the familiar and continuing on with it. The next Michael Jackson, the next Madonna, the next Elton John - whomever it may be, we are always relating things back. This could be through musical and dance style or the marketing package of this celebrity. We like nostalgia, we like being able to relive history in an “active way,” but what dangers does this present?

Post class, October 26th

October 26, 2010

In class today we went over some key quotations:

“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”(Althusser, 44). There is something in this “imaginary relationship” that brings comfort to people. We thus are willing to give up our freedom

“There is no practice except by and in an ideology”(45). This is the idea that we cannot get outside of ideology. Ideology are the theories and praxis. Althusser says there is nothing that is not ideology and everything that is capable of being read is ideological.

“The author and the reader…both live… ‘naturally’ in ideology”(46). There are connections with the structurist and us as a participatory culture.

“Those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology.” (48) This is Gramsci’s definition of hegemony. The most extremely example of this would be ‘fundamentalism’.

We than discuss Culture:

“The best that has been thought and said” (Arnold)

“Ordinary behaviour of the people”(Williams)

William’s idea of what culture is seems to be more so popular culture. Arnold see’s culture as something fixed while Williams see’s change as generations change. There is something natural with Arnold’s idea of culture. Arnold sees a “fixed culture” which we in society have accepted and Williams sees a culture of “Transformation” and “movement”.

Theorist Barthes say’s “myth is a type of speech”. Nascar driver Dale Ernhart is an example of cultural awareness and this “myth”. Regionaly that are subcultures separate from one another. The way we define our mythology is the way we speak; It is a language.

“Ideology saturates everyday discourse in the form of common sense”(148). These things are often accepted and we than share the same “common sense” without question. This is the notion of a shared understanding.

Althusser- Ideology “is profoundly unconscious”

The language of education

Examples at Rollins

· R-card

· Jolly Rolly Colly

· Club Olin

Gramsci sees Hegemony as “an evolving equilibrium”.

Volosinov “Sign becomes the arena of the class struggle.” The sign itself becomes a site of conflict.

“Subcultures represent ‘noise’ (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence…” (153)

Recperation of the sub-culture

· Subcultural signs become mass produced

· “Deviant” behavior redefined (155)

Once something becomes reproduced, things change.

Hebdige

In the reading Marx states, “ideology by definition thrives beneath consciousness. It is here, at the level of “normal common sense”, that ideological frames of reference are most firmly sedimented and most effective, because it is here that their ideological nature is most effectively concealed” (Hebdige 148). This quote about ideology is interesting because it is saying that ideology occurs when you don’t even know that it is happening and that it is most effective in this state of “normal common sense”. Common sense is something that a person either has or doesn’t have, but either way, it is not really thought about, just like ideology. We are exposed to all these different views (some are viewed as ideological, the right way) and without even knowing it, we begin to believe whatever it is telling us to believe. “Ideology thrives beneath consciousness” is saying that we need to look beneath what is obvious and realize that ideology happens in a nonconscious way. This relates to Barthes and his concept of “the gap” because it is telling us to almost read between the lines and look at what isn’t there, and that is where ideology is created.

On page 151 Gramsci states that hegemony is “not universal and given to the continuing rule of a particular class, but won, reproduced, and sustained…a moving equilibrium containing relations of forces favorable and unfavorable to this or that tendence” (Hebdige 151). This quote is saying that our hegemonic ideologies are not only always changing, but it also depends on the culture so it’s impossible that it could be universal. Going back to Marx when he talks about active agents, when it comes to hegemony it is the same idea-that we are the active agents and we decide what hegemony or ideology is in favor of.

A commodity is something that can be bought or sold. Hebdige states, “each new subculture establishes new trends, generates new looks and sounds which feed back into the appropriate industries” (Hebdige 155). I found this quote very interesting because it has a lot to do with what happens in the fashion/celebrity world today. I feel like every celebrity is trying to make a statement with their fashion and create attention and the best way to do that is through the media. Lady Gaga is a perfect example of someone who tries to establish new trends and looks which are fed to the appropriate industries (Fashion industry, media, etc) to create the “next big fashion statement”. So many people, who idolize celebrities, will see their new fashion statement, which will then be turned into a commodity because everyone will want to buy the clothing in order to be up to date with their fashion trends.

“On my honor I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work”

Hebdige

Hebdige's reading 'From culture to Hegemony; Subculture: The Unnatural Break' outlines pretty much everything we've been discussing in class to this point illustrating various theorists concepts and refining them to compile his article. First Hebdige explains culture, giving the Oxofrd dictionary definition then elaborating. Important here are Raymond Williams notions of 'quality of life' which he says is 'the effects in human terms of mechinization, the division of labour and the creation of a mass society' (144). This statement sums up Marx and a number of other theorists works to create this all encompassing notion. Interesting in this is how the term is set up as a byproduct of industry and its resultant influence on society. This considers the bourgeosie proletariat split, and moves to Williams next concept of an 'organic society - of society as an integrated meaningful whole' (144). This idea of society, as organic society includes all previous theorists works and serves as a to universalize their theories. The social splits being divided by classical and aesthetic excellence. The 'culture as a standard of aesthetic excellence: ' the best that hsa been thought and said in the world and it derived from an appreciation of 'classic' aesthetic form (opera, ballet, drama, literature, art etc.)' (145) is a very interesting notion to consider in markign the shift from modernism to post-modernism. It undertakes that we must learn from the past in conjuncture with the present and future to shape our cultural identities. Hebdige then moves to Barthes to cover another concept we have discussed in class - semiotics. Here Bathers' says "semiotics promised nothing less than the reconciliation of the two conflicting definitions of culture upon which Cultural Studies was so ambiguously posited - a marriage of moral conviction and popular themes: the study fo a society's total way of life" (147). Our understanding of semiotics thus far has been just the study of signs but this definition expands on that notion quite a bit and makes it more encompassing. With this Hebdige ties in Stuart Halls' idea of connotative codes which 'cover the face of social life and render it classifiable, intelligible nad meaningful' (149). And then naturalization saying "all human societies reproduce themselves in this way thourgh a process of naturalization. IT is through this process - a kind of inevitable reflex of all social life - that particular sets of social relations, particular ways of organizing the world appear to us as if they were universal and timeless' (149). Again we have covered naturalization and connotative codes but not together and Hebdige's covered is a usual aid in the understanding of both notions. Hebdige then covers my favorite quote of Marx about mental and material production but I'm going to skip that because i can literally recite it by heart. Next of importance is Gramsci's notion that hegemony is " not universal and given to the continuing rule of a particular class but won, reproduced and sustained ... a moving equilibrium containing relations of forces favourable and unfavourable to this or that tendency' (151). The notion of hegemony in constant generatoinal flux is useful when thinking about the concept. Our hegemonic ideologies are always shifting, changing, adapting and reproducing. This is due to what Lefebvre says is the 'objections and contradictions which hinder the closing ofthe circuit between sign and object, production and reproduciton.' (151). With this there is an evident struggle for signification of signs - "a struggle within signification: a struggle for possession of the sign which extends to even the most mundane areas of everyday life" (151). This struggle takes the form of subcultures which "represent noise: interference in the orderly sequence which leads from real events and phenomena to their representation in the media. We should therefore not underestimate the signifying power of teh spectacular subculture not only a a metaphor for potential anarchy "out there" but as an actual mechanism of semantic disorder: a kind of temporary blockage in the system of representation" (153). This ties to the notion of participatory culture which stands to diffuse semiotics. "The diffusion of youth styles from the subcultures to the fashion market is not simply a cultural process but a real network or infrastructure of new kinds of commercial and economic institutions" (156). Hebdige then returns to Lefebvre stating "trade is... both a social and an intellectual phenomenon and commodities arrive at the market-place already laden with significance. They are, in Marx's words 'social hieroglyphs' and their meanings are inflected by conventional usage" (156). This shows the impact of subculture in contemporary society in shifting socio-cultural commodities and the social power in shaping what is infact a commodity by the consumer. LAstly, an important definition in Hebdige that relates to previous coverage in our class is that of the 'Other' and the evolution of dealing with the threat the Other poses to society: "the Other can be trivialized, naturalized, domesticated. Here, the difference is simply denied ("otherness is reduced to sameness"). Alternatively, the Other can be transformed into meaningless exotica, a pure object, a spectacle, a clown. In this case the difference s consigned to a place beyond analysis." (157).
These concepts expand on ones we have previously studied and are what we will be discussing in class tomorrow.

Pre Class Blog - Subculture & Media example

Our text “From Culture to Hegemony; (ii) Subculture:

The Unnatural Break” by Dick Hebdige argues that subcultures ‘represent “noise” ’ and not sound; an example for this was specifically given through the music by the Sex Pistols. Their music when it came out was shocking and uncomforting to the majority of society because it was something they were not ‘used’ to. The Sex Pistols, as Hebdige argues, ‘violated the authorized codes through which the social world is organized and experienced have considerable power to provoke and disturb.’ (153) The Sex Pistols were a spectacular subculture because they expressed forbidden contents in forbidden forms. I researched some of their lyrics and found that they spoke their mind purely, freely and did not fear to speak their mind.

(EMI

There's unlimited supply

And there is no reason why

I tell you it was all a frame

They only did it 'cos of fame

Who?

E.M.I. E.M.I. E.M.I.

Too many people had the suss

Too many people support us

Un unlimited amount

Too many outlets in and out

Who?

E.M.I E.M.I E.M.I

And sir and friends are crucified

A day they wished that we had died

We are an addition

We are ruled by none

Never ever never

And you thought that we were faking

That we were all just money making

You do not believe we're for real

Or you would lose your cheap appeal?

Don't judge a book just by the cover

Unless you cover just another

And blind acceptance is a sign

Of stupid fools who stand in line

Like…)

When such a subculture, as the Sex Pistols, emerge it is at first exploited in the media. It is made a spectacle and fluctuates between ‘dread and fascination, outrage and amusement; Shock and horror headlines dominate the front page.’ (154) Therefore it is both celebrated and ridiculed or reviled. Hebdige explains that there are two forms of incorporation when subcultures emerge.

The first being ‘the conversion of subcultural signs in

to mass-produced objects; and the second the “labeling” and re-definition of deviant behavior by dominant groups – the police, the media, the judiciary’. (155)

If something can make a statement (the best is to make it shocking because it will automatically be exploited in the media) it will catch people’s attention through the media and there will be people who will follow ‘this statement’. Therefore ‘it’ can be reproduced into a commodity of some form and be consumed.

I added two fashion images of 'high heel shoes' that have made a statement and probably a quite shocking one. Yet according to Hebdige 'each new subculture establishes new trends, generates new looks and sounds which feed back into the appropriate industries'. (155)

AHC - Geena Krueger

Post class 10/21

I was not in class 10/21 so I will use this post-my response to class to respond to AK's post-class post about Marx and use it as a jump off for my own thoughts. The best quote I took from the reading acts as both a summation of past works making up the reading as well as setting the frame for contemporary ideology; page33: "When Marx and Engels were working on the foundational text The German Ideology in 1846 they were writing in a historical situation in which the control of ideas was relatively unimportant to the maintenance of the existing social order and the exerise of force by the ruling class was relatively overt and unashamed. Since then, with the development of mass education, forms of parliamentary democracy and, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the mass media, the social control of thought has become of major political importance and with it, the question of ideology." To any discussion of Marx I have ever taken part in its seems critical to mention his ideological notion that the rulers of material production are also the rulers of mental production. The quote I started this off with discusses this because it was pre-industrial revolution and globalized capitalism where those in power were the ones who owned the means of material prodution in its most basic sense - farms etc. TOday the shift to globalized capitalist economy has complicated this structure a to some degree however it is not as large a complication as one may think. The owners of the material means of production still due own the means of mental production just the parameters of each have changed. In our day the media conglomerates own the mental production through literally shaping the news that is released and consumed by the masses. As most evident with the spread of falsified reports before the War in Iraq, the media has an agenda and those who own it use it to accomplish their own ends or the ends of the highest bidder. That means that the chase of capital has allowed the owners of the material means of production and mental means of production to outsource their power to the highest bidder in pursuit of capital. This destabilizes the entire ideological paradigm as it puts it in on constant flux and leads to the idea of ideology as 'false consciousness' (pg. 34). Ideology in this day and age in contrast to Marx's time is a chase of capital and is in flux because of this so it is in a sense a false consciousness - we never know what we will get the next day or who will be distributing it.

Media example - faster newer better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XlJbvwgBvk

The Apple iPhone4 add is a great example to what Marx refers to when he talks about the binary oppositions of the American Ruling class....all the Apple add talks about is faster, newer, many (multitasking) etc. and that it is portrayed as better. This add hits much on what Benjamin talks about as well I believe. The iPhone4 through FaceTime can put "...the 'copy' of the person into situations which would be out of the reach of the actual person (original) itself." (Benjamin 20) Referring back to Marx, though, the ruling class - or our media currently - is showing us through adds and such that faster, newer, more is 'better' than old, slow and few...another example of this can be seen in the short car add where the main three words to promote this Lincoln car is 'Cleaner. Faster. Smarter.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwTPMyaLbU

Post Class Post

We started off class by continuing with our last Jenkins' reading. We focused on ‘media convergence’ specifically on Startrek. It is about how media nowadays now a day’s branch out in all sorts of areas – Startrek was a popular movie that was re-depicted in all kinds of ways. And this is where we differentiated between ‘satire’ and ‘parody’. We talked about our participatory culture and use of these two was to ‘recreate’ a media. Jenkins argues that are culture has been ‘a turn back toward a more folk ‘ culture understanding of creativity’. That more and more media is easily represented and able to be shown to the world easily through the web. YouTube is a great example of what Jenkins is talking about. We can be this ‘unknown’ person in the world and put together something like the ‘StarTrek and Nine Inch Nails’ video and let others easily have access to it – comment on it – participate in my idea; hence ‘participatory culture’.

Additionally we focused much on what Karl Marx has to argue about his ideas of the ruling class. Marx claims that our consciousness is constructed – that our ‘social being determines our consciousness’. For example my consciousness has been constructed through the environment I grew up in, the media that surrounded my environment, my social standing, my parents, the people I hung out with etc. It makes sense therefore that he also says ‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’. We further discussed the ‘binary oppositions of the American Ruling Class’. One of the examples was between ‘fast’ and ‘slow’. I was thinking of the example of means of transportation. The ruling class can own cars, if not multiple and afford plane tickets etc. whereas the lower class may only own one car if that, or take buses and trams. Whether one was better than the other is everyone’s personally opinion I believe. Ideology yet tells us that faster, newer, many…is better than slow, old, fewer…hence I believe majority of people would, I believe if they had the choice, choose what society, hence media tells us is better. Who would want an old computer over a new computer?; A slow car over a fast car?; One house over two houses? I think you know what I’m getting at…

AHC – Geena Krueger

Post Class- Marx

In last Thursday’s class, we discussed theorists Marx and Althesser and their opinions on ideology. When we look specifically at Marx, “The golden rule” is one term that describes our societies economic system and how it operates. The word “gold,” in this phrase, refers to power. In general, Marx believes that he who holds the gold, rules. This means that those in society who are wealthy are the ones who maintain power over everyone else. In another quote, Marx also states “the class which is ruling material force of society is at the same time is ruling intellectual force.” The term material presented in this quotation is directly referring to means of production. Therefore, those who are the ruling forces in our society are not just wealthy but intellectual forces as well. Those who fit these criteria are in charge of all means of production. Another topic that we discussed last class was the binary oppositions of the American ruling class. These oppositions are things such as fast-slow, new-old, upward-downward, active-passive, etc. When referring to binary oppositions of the American ruling class, a perfect example would be technology. In today’s society we constantly desire things that are bigger, better and faster. When using the example technology, ideology allows us to believe that one product is better than the other. We are constantly updating our cell phones, computers, etc., in search for the newest and greatest thing. Although we don’t necessarily need these items, it is the ruling class (those in charge of production) that forces us to believe we can’t live without them. Another example would be the idea of a “home.” Society has created this ideal of the perfect home in our minds or often referred to as the “American Dream.” We are always striving for this “perfect” home life (ideal family, white picket fence, quaint neighborhood, etc.). However, it seems that even when we conquer these goals, we are never satisfied and still searching for something more. Capitalism has a way of creating this sense of desire. We always want what we can’t have.

post class 10/21

Those who hold the gold, rule. Thursday's class was the first time I had ever heard this term but it is one that I connect with and will likely remember for years to come. It is difficult to argue that our Captialist society doesn't operate under this rule to a certain degree. My personal opinion is that rather than orally argue agains the morals behind this 'rule', we as citizens need to take action in changing the way our society thinks and operates. We need to adjust our 'ideology'. This is obviously easier said than done; however, I believe it starts on an individual level. We need to take action individually before the media responds to our wants.

Our society has become so driven by consumerism that is has cost us value in character, friendship and family. The media constantly feeds this ideology of the cult of the new and teaches us that the only way we will be happy is if we have more. When we observe cultures across the world, we start to see that they do not operate under the same consumer driven mind set we do in America. The problem with this mindset is that once we have the item we were coveting, we find a new item to covet and the first item often become insignificant. We are constantly trying out do ourselves and others. In American society, we believe that if we live just as well or better than our parents we have been successful. In many eastern cultures, outdoing your parents is viewed as disrespectful. It demonstrates that you are not proud of your family and only care about superficial things.

Obviously everything is needed in moderation but I do think it is important for Americans to look at how they view life and what they emphasize as important.

Post Class Post - Althusser

Last week in class we read and discussed works written by several different theorists: Jenkins, Marx, and Althusser. I've said it before but the material we covered this week related a lot to one of my electives that i'm in this fall: Ideology and Mass Culture. I particularly enjoyed how Althusser focused on ideology; I always feel like ideologies are emotional topics/notions because they eventually come down to power, who has it and who doesn't and in our nation we don't like to talk too much about that.

I have learned that it's in the best interest of the ruling class in the U.S. to make sure that we all believe in the various ideologies that have been injected into our society. As long as we have hope and the belief that some sort of favorable return or social mobility will come from all our hard work, they will remain in control. It's once we realize that we're hopeless and have to resist that these ideologies become targets. However, because those who are wealthy/in power never really seem to lose, our efforts can only be so effective. It's what's around us and various pre-determined factors that control who we are. That's why I liked Althusser's quote when he said "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness" (38).

I also liked how Dr. Tillmann further explained Althusser's notions of the RSA/ISA's...I remembered that they were important from past cmc classes but had forgotten which social institutions belonged in which spots. From our lecture I gathered that the RSA includes Gov., Courts, Prisons, the Police and the Army...and that the ISA includes Family, Religion, Education, Media, Culture, Union, Legal/Political.

Post-Class Blog

After discussing Satire and Parody last class on Thursday, I began to think about different movies that base their entire plots on parody. Parody is the use of misery, sarcasm, ridicule of the like in exposing, denouncing, or deriding. The first movie that came to mind was Not Another Teen Movie.



Here we see the different movies parodied such as Bring It On, 10 Things I Hate About You, She’s All That, American Beauty, and many more. They make fun of the fact that every teen movie has the popular jock, the token black guy, the cruelest girl in school, the cheerleaders, etc. It points this out in a comedic way which shows us how often these stereotypes are portrayed in ‘teen flicks’. I found it interesting that they made fun of hegemony in the sense that the token black guy stays out of the conversation and is only in the movie to say stereotyped sayings such as ‘that is wack’. The white male is the one who always plays the jock and gets any girl he wants.

I found it interesting how in today’s culture we now parody other movies. Other movies that do this are Scary Movie, Date Movie, and Not Another Teen Vampire Movie. There are many YouTube videos where everyday people create parodies on movies such as Twilight or satires of the news and politics. This shows our participatory culture in that these people take something and make it into something new.

In class, we also discussed ideology in a way that made me had a better understanding of it. The Golden Rule is the notion that there is a ruling class and then everyone else. The Binary Oppositions include fast vs. slow, new vs. old, upward vs. downward, among many others. What I never realized about ideology is the fact that it tells us something discriminating about these … one is better than the other. This is how our culture operates. There are the bad and the good, the poor and the better. There is no happy medium between the two. With that said, ideology shows us the structure of our culture and how it operates.

post class 10/24

On Thursday in class, we discussed readings by Karl Marx and Louis Althusser. There were many things that we talked about that struck my interest. The first is the notion of ideology and class. Marx states, “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. The class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production” (Marx, 39). The notion that whoever controls what is produced in a society creates the ideas that society lives around. We related this to our society as Americans and consumerism. The ruling class wants us to spend in order to keep production going. The ruling class encourages us to buy because in our society, the way you are looked at in society depends on the value of the “stuff” that you own.

Another concept of ideology that I found interesting was the idea of an ideology vanishing when another ideology threatens it. Marx also says, “Within this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts, but whenever a practical collision occurs in which the class itself is endangered they automatically vanish” (Marx, 38). The way we related this concept in class was by comparing it to the September 11^th attacks on the twin towers. We talked about the picture of congress linking arms. The interesting part about it was both republicans and democrats are linking arms. The ideology of republicans and democrats running the country different ways vanished because the terrorist’s ideology collided bringing an ideology of togetherness and the country coming together as one.

On my honor I have not given nor received nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this blog.

Post class

This week in class the concept of ideology was discussed and analyzed. Marx, Althusser, and Hebdige all talk about ideology, and how it is an unconscious sphere of our everyday culture. Culture stems farther than the ballet, museums, or architecture. Culture is preformed daily. The reason I use the word ‘perform’ in relation to culture is because culture in not hereditary. From a very young age people are taught their culture, they watch and mimic their culture, and instinctively learn their culture. As a result, the act of participating in culture is a performance of what a person has learned since birth. The reason we know culture is not built into our DNA is because different regions have different cultures. Within cultures are Ideologies, or ‘norms’, that are accepted. Marx’s Golden Rule is that whoever has the money, has the power to determine a cultures ideology. This rule is closely related with the concepts of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and the proletariat, the oppressed classes below. The ruling class creates ideologies that help them to stay powerful, and keep other class from taking control over the control. Althusser mentions the ‘American Dream’ as a prime example of this tactic. The American Dream is that if your work hard enough you can achieve anything. That wealth and success come from sweat and hard work. The point of this ideology is to inspire hard work in the proletariat; therefore, increase production and efficiency in a commodity based culture. This ‘having it all’ concept also provokes spending and feeds into consumerism. As a result, the business owners not only have harder works and more efficient production, but also have a culture focused on consuming and having it all. Therefore, the rich have created a culture that makes them stay rich. This wealth allows them to maintain control and the cycle continues. However, we are not all passive participants in this cycle, but instead active agents.


I have niether given nor recieved aid on this blog

Thursday- Post Class

In Thursday’s class discussion on Ideology, we discussed the power of those who control the means of production. As we discussed with Marx and “The Golden Rule,” those who are in power are able to make all of the calls. The dominance of the ruling class allows for there to be a dominant ideology that is very difficult to overthrow. I think this is very relevant in our society today since power is located in the hands of very few people in many different industries. For instance, the media industry, and the food industry out of all have some of the most dominating tactics. Only a few media companies control all of the media that we see. Including films, music, news, and television. That monopolizing control allows for a small percentage of people in the ruling class to decide what media the entire country views. With that control they are able to portray through media what they think everyone should focus on, emphasize certain issues while downplaying others and whatever else they choose to feature. The same kind of control exists within the food industry. Only a few companies control all of the food that is distributed within the United States. They have control over how the food is labeled, not telling consumers the whole truth behind the food they are eating. Whether the food has been genetically modified or what fertilizers and hormones have been put in their food. Especially with the control of the media, if the consumers are not active agents it is very hard to see what ideologies are at play because they are overarching through so many outlets that are provided by the media. An example of this is Time Warner. They are the largest cable company in the United States. They control CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, Headline News and they have a partial ownership of Comedy Central. They control HBO and Cinemax. They control 24 magazines. They are the second largest book-publishing company in the world. There are many more media outlets that they control but those are just to name a few. This shows how much domination that those who are in power have. Many consumers most likely are not aware of how much control companies like Time Warner actually has.

Post Class Blog 10/24

This week in class as we came across Louis Althusser’s ideas on ideology I was dumbfounded. Although I have studied this previously in my CMC 100 course I found it even harder to accept than previously. On Thursday in class we also talked specifically about individuals as active agents and the “Golden Rule.” This really hit home for me. As mentioned we talked about multiple instances where we have experienced in our personal lives how ideology tells us one way is always better than the other. That one way seems consistently to remind us that the constructed way is the only way. This is clearly present in our society from type of internet (dial-up or high-speed) to the way we perceive what the best education is for our children (private school verses public.) In relation to the “Golden Rule” is it clear that ideology rules nearly all of us! This is so disturbing to me, since I have high-speed internet that makes me better than the person who has dial-up internet even if it is what they prefer? In my opinion, it is far from what someone has materialistically or believes in (agrees with the ideologues of this time in society) that makes them “Rule.” Fortunately for me, I was raised in a very generous family but never thought that what I had or wanted was better than others around me. My parents never pushed certain dominant ideologies on me or gave me the next best thing just because. By instilling the ideas of working towards what I wanted rather than what others wanted and or had based on what the ideologies told them I am able to step back and realize the harmfulness these ideologies cause. Don’t get me wrong, there are certain things that I want and only want because they are the next best thing, but I am still aware of what my desires mean and how this want for them effects me and those around me. If ideologies continue to dictate the means of our society there are going to be few “real” people left on this earth.

Technology

Post Class- Marx and Althusser

I found this picture stumbling- I didn't get it at first because I don't play video games, but it's a compilation between Toy Story's Buzz and Woody and the video games Mass Effect and Red Dead Redemption. The difference between parody and satire is a hard one to discern, but I believe this one would be labeled as satire. Toy Story is supposed to be for children- funloving and happy. For a Disney movie, there isn't any more violence than usual, but there is the presence of violence and masculine characters. It's actually one of the only Disney movies with two men as main characters. The alpha-male fight for power between Buzz and Woody is a focal point of the first Toy Story in particular. The addition of the two ultra-violent super-hegemonically masculine characters from video games accentuates the violence found in the Disney movie. I thought it was pretty interesting.


I felt a little bit better about ideology after Thursday's class... knowing that I wasn't the only one a little disappointed that I'm now revealed to the social constructs in my society. I really liked Althusser because I felt like we were going back to CMC 100 and to the intimacies of what the major is all about, and why it matters. To understand anything else in this entire major we need to fully understand what Althusser is saying. I also got to thinking about Marx, more specifically the difference between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Those same social constructs can be found in today's society- I feel like now more than ever the rich are staying rich and the poor are getting poorer, albeit there are serious cases of rich people watching their lives go down the drain after the tough economic slump. If all of this is so readily available to learn, I just want to know why, if the less fortunate are a majority, things aren't taking a turn.

Class Post-Jenkins, Marx, Althusser

Thinking back to our class discussion last Tuesday when we were talking about grass-roots, another example would be Wikipedia. Anyone can write whatever he or she wants on Wikipedia, without even being an expert in the field. The problem with that is people actually use that website as a source, so if anyone can write what they want it is guaranteed that a majority of the information isn’t even true. This relates to Mark Poster when he talked about freedom of speech. We not only have freedom of speech in our dialogue but we other have it with the media (to an extent, because of what the government regulates), but we definitely have it on websites such as Wikipedia and also with blogging. Because of people having the freedom of speech on Wikipedia, they are technically allowed to write whatever they want, even if the facts they are writing aren’t true.

I also found it interesting when we were talking about binary oppositions of the American ruling class and what we considered to be better (either the fast, new, upward, etc or the slow, old, downward, etc). We came to the conclusion that ideology and we, as the active agents, are the factors that determine what is better. If we were looking at what we consider to be the ‘American Dream’, then we would probably say that ideology determines that the fast, new and upward is better because the ‘American Dream’ says that we desire what’s bigger, better, and faster. We are always striving for whatever is out of reach for us-we want what we can’t have. This also ties into when we were talking about media and how it sends us mixed messages when it comes to the economy and whether we should buy products or save our money. Some media tells us to spend money because essentially it will help the economy, but others tell us that we need to save our money and eventually the economy will be better, but it’s better to save it and be safe than sorry. With some people, when they hear the media telling them to save money it makes them feel like they can’t have the products they want and that makes he or she want it more, just like with the ‘American Dream’ and how we strive for what we can’t have.

“On my honor I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work”

Freedom of the Visual? - Post Class

Thinking back to our discussion about Poster, I cannot seem to get the idea of Freedom of Speech out of my head. This constitutional right gives us the power to voice our opinions, speak up when something is unjustified, and show the world that we have thoughts of our own. However, Poster brings up this concept and its transition into technology. Freedom of speech is no longer simply found in dialoge and speeches, but rather every single time someone opens a web page. It is written out in blogs and on Facebook and is full of attitudes, perspectives, and thoughts. Nevertheless, the more we move into this world of connectivity and rhizome, the more this amendment’s detail blurs. Facebook is an open forum where people express their deepest concerns, reach out to friends, and have the opportunity to discuss occurring issues. Yet, every time we log on, we forget about the crucial media portion of our major. We take a step back, regress into the uncritical, passive state, and become consumed with the speed and connectivity in front of us. Yet, by being passive, we are being naïve. In recent years, Facebook has made its way into monitoring of students in schools across the country and is often checked in the job market.

Back in 2007, Oxford University used the site and students’ profile pictures as a way to catch and fine them for inappropriate acts. The students of course fought back and unfortunately, with Facebook considered a public domain, lost the fight against this modern disciplinary website. It is not about whether or not the students were posting inappropriate things, but rather the dangers connectivity has and its ability to challenge freedom of speech. What is a social forum where people should be allowed to voice their thoughts and post about their life is becoming a monitored and penalizing tool? Nevertheless, I ask Poster and the class, does Freedom of Speech mean visuals? They say photo and multimedia has become a very powerful form of visual rhetoric. So I wonder, do they have the same rights to freedom of speech just as the dialogue that has come before or will our passivity come with consequence in the future?

Post Class Post and Example

In Tuesday’s class we discussed Poster and his ideas of cross connecting and how we prefer virtual reality to the real. We talked about the quote from Poster’s essay:

“What distinguishes the telephone from the other great media is its decentralized quality and its universal exchangeability of the positions of sender and receiver” (535).

In this quote, Poster is saying that when you are on the telephone, you don’t always know someone’s exact location. But you are still able to have that exchangeability without being there have a face-to-face conversation. An example of this is the opening scene in the movie Scream when Casey answers the phone and the serial killer is right outside her house. She doesn’t know his location (that he is outside her house) because they are on the phone and they are not face-to-face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFCStOMqpfk

I made the connection of this quote with Zizek’s idea of malignant properties. We used the example in class of a Real Coca Cola vs. Diet Coke. Coke loses its malignant properties to become Diet Coke. You still have the taste of real Coke, the caffeine, but without the calories. Relating this to the telephone quote, by using the telephone, we are able to have the same conversation with someone that we can have face-to-face just without the physical presence of the person being in front of you.

Althusser

Althusser's concept of how we are essentially trapped inside ideology summed up the basic cornerstone of the entire CMC major for me. This is the world we are living in because we made it this way-- our culture in every single aspect is an ideology... down to what I think is fact ties in directly to the world constructed around me. And that leaves me kind of depressed because I feel like everything, down to the 30 second advertisements on TV, are lies. It reminds me of the Matrix in a way that there is a layer underneath everything we see that is so far off from what we feel is real. It's hard to not be paranoid and search for the negative connotation behind all of the social constructs we've grown up around. AK wrote in their post about advertisements on TV and how if it's a home appliance its automatically geared towards women because home is where a woman is supposed to be. Even if I see a seemingly powerful woman in an ad (print or TV) there are three scenarios: she's either attractive, overly sexualized, or the stereotypical uptight spinster. Is the natural average woman so bad?? I don't think so, but at the same time the cultural ideology I've grown up with tells me that I'm probably not going to pay attention to average. This hegemonic control over the way our minds are shaped is SO important, and despite the hundreds of thousands of pages available with information drawing back the veil and screaming "LOOK AT THIS AND CHANGE IT" there is nothing to be done. Because wouldn't it be just another cycle of shifting reality? And who is to say that what is there is wrong, or what we think should be there is appropriate? It's overwhelming, and I think Althusser did a great job in explaining the dangers of the "cult of the new" and how we are obsessed with things that should be trivial (see.. even when I write that, isn't that mindset still in our ideology??). This idea that we must be passive because being active is labeled as "radical" is just a construct that's meant to stop us from questioning what's in place. But when it's so engrained, I'm left seriously asking myself.. what exactly can I do without being disregarded and othered?

10/20/10

In the reading this week on Althusser for CMC 300, he discusses the concept of ideology in our society. After reading Althusser’s work, I discovered that we are always already subjects and, as subjects, we are constantly inside ideology. With that, Althusser also discusses how these ideologies have a tendency to manifest themselves within the text. “What is represented in ideology is therefore not the system of the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live”. As we look at the statement above, we are told that it is not the system of real relations that symbolizes ideology but rather the imaginary relations that those people live. Media ultimately constructs the subject or reproduces ideology in people by drawing us as individuals in within our society. This brings us to the point that certain texts are directed at certain people. For example, say I was sitting at my house and an advertisement about a kitchen appliance came on the television. Presuming this specific advertisement is directed towards a woman, if I were to pay attention to the advertisement even in the slightest way, I would be indirectly responding to my position as a woman in society. That is, my role as a woman to stay at home and clean the house. This stereotypical role of me being a woman was reinforced because I hailed into and allowed myself to accept the message of this simple advertisement.

Althusser Post

For tomorrow's class we were instructed to read Louis Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus". This reading coincides very well with one of the electives i'm taking this fall called Ideology and Mass Culture.

In his work, Althusser talks a lot about social practices, ideology, and ISA's (family, media, religious organizations, and our education system)/RSA's (repressive state apparatus). One particular ideology that has thrived in our society is the notion of the American dream: since we were young social institutions and those around us have influenced our desire to live a comfortable, successful life. Hoschchild claims that "the American dream implies reaching some threshold of well-being" (12). Because social mobility is next to impossible in our communities, few people are ever actually able to reach a higher standard of living and our 'surrendering' to the idea that there's nothing we can to do better our lives just legitimates the social system and reinforces the dominant ideology in place. Those in the upper class want these ideologies to function that way...it's in their best interest for us to keep reinforcing that popular way of thinking.

All in all I thought that this reading was a little hard and at times I wondered why he had to word particular sentences in such weird ways instead of just saying what he really meant. I'm not sure if I got the full message out of this piece but I think that because it relates so well to the stuff i'm learning in Van Sickle's class I was able to figure out the gist of what Althusser was trying to say. I remembered that  the ISA's and the RSA's were important terms (I think that was CMC 100) and I believe that the reading also could be compared to the writings of Habermas and Lyotard.

Althusser Post

Ideology is a prominent theme in Critical Media Studies and it carries through into our day to day lives. The notion of the American Dream and the strive to achieved the hegemonic narrative, is likely the most prominent ideology in our society today. The issue that arises with this type of ideology is that it is not necessarily a reality or attainable for most people. As stated below, the top 1% of society has a monopoly over the majority of our economy, in turn, the media and government as well. This control only reinforces the hegemonic narrative through our countries ideals and through advertising in the media.

In order to achieve the 'American Dream', which in the end is a marketing ploy to increase consumerism and commodify nearly everything, citizens drive themselves into debt and often loose moral ground. Through this desire to achieve the hegemonic narrative, we see communities such as 'Celebration' that are a simulacra of the all american town, Main St. USA. We don't truly achieve the rags to riches story and feeling of success, we just create something that on the surface appears wonderful but lacks a sense of originality and the aura of true accomplishment.

Ideology has also encouraged the 'Cult of the New'. We have become a completely consumer driven society and that has caused many Americans to loose sight of who and what they truly care about.

Post 10/21

This weeks reading in the book A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader, we learn about the concept and the idea of ideology. The simplest definition of ideology is a system of ideas or beliefs, one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. This is the most general definition and the first part of our reading reminded me of what we are currently learning in my SOC 311 class called Ideology and Mass Culture. We look at the ideology of the American Dream and how class is divided among the population.

We talked about the upper or the super class’s ideas are the ones that society follows. As explained by Marx and Engels, “The class which has the means of mental production at its disposal, consequently, also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of the those to lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it” (Marx and Engels, 39). People in lower classes often feel like they are being taken advantage of because of the fact that the top 1% of our population owns a lot of the country’s wealth. But society does not challenge this because the idea of “there’s nothing we can do about it.” The ideology of the American Dream consists of working hard and if people are challenging the way big corporations and media companies run their business, then fear sets in that they might lose their job. The idea is set in our minds that we must work to live the American Dream and the idea of working hard comes from big industries that needed a lot of work to make as much money as they are making today.

On my honor I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed, any unauthorized assistance on this blog.

Pre blog post

Ideology as described by our book is the notion of ideas. Marx argues that although ideas something individuals come up with ‘it is not the consciousness of people that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.’ This makes complete sense because we ‘nothing’ else. We grew up watching other people argue and it is not the argument itself that has already happened but further what comes out in the argument, such as gender issues. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels say it the best, ‘the idea of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.’ The ruling class controls the media, the films, the news and our TV shows; what we see there weather consciously or unconsciously we seem to act similarly by copying their actions. Therefore all we are really doing is following in the steps of ideology…

To Althusser the Ideological State Apparatuses function ‘by ideology’. By the Ideological State Apparatuses (as we have previously learnt) he means the religious ISA, the educational ISA, the family ISA, the legal ISA, the political ISA, the trade-union ISA, the communications ISA and the cultural ISA. All of these apparatuses function ‘by ideology’. Althusser presents two theses: Thesis I being ‘ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence’ the II Theses being, ‘ideology has a material existence’. I believe what Althusser is saying that we build a relationship to these apparatuses that we have created that isn’t really real but imaginary. We use them, knowing that they do not correspond to reality, to discover what is behind that imaginary reality itself. All apparatuses are the ‘imaginary, representation of the real world’. Ideology already presents to us something fake, unreal and that is our imaginary relationship that we have to those apparatuses mentioned. We therefore believe we are not following the ideologies set forth but are actually exactly doing that!